(PC) Bellows v. Vang

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA BELLOWS, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00300-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 13 v. DEFENDANTS K. VANG, et al., 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Patricia Bellows is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 On March 4, 2024, the Court issued its Second Screening Order. (Doc. 14.) This Court found Plaintiff’s first amended complaint plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, as well as an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant McClain but fails to allege any other cognizable claim against any other named Defendant. (Id. at 5-14.) As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 21 days of the date of service of the order: (1) notify the Court in writing that she did not wish to file a second amended complaint and she was willing to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, and the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim | against Defendant McClain; the remaining claims against any defendant to be dismissed; or (2) | file a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the Second | Screening Order; or (3) file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (/d. at 15.)

4 In an April 12, 2024 filing, dated and signed March 27, 2024, Plaintiff states that she is | “not going forth with a second amendment and agree(s) to proceed only on the cognizable | claim(s)” identified by the Court. (/d.)

7 I. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Second Screening Order, the Court | RECOMMENDS that: 10 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment failure to protect 11 claims against Defendants Villaboas and Voguel, and Eighth Amendment deliberate 12 indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant McClain, pursuant to 13 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 14 2. The remaining claims in Plaintiffs first amended complaint be DISMISSED; and 15 3. Defendants Gonzales and K. Vang be DISMISSED from this action.

16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the district judge assigned to || this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of the date of service of these | Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The | document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and | Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of | rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

23 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 18, 2024 | Wr Pr 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE